Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 153563 February 07, 2005
NATIONA TRUC!ING AN" FOR#AR"ING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
OREN$O S%IPPING CORPORATION, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
&UISUM'ING, J.:
For revie" on certiorari are the "e()*)o+
#
dated $anuar% #&, '((', of the !ourt of
)ppeals, in !)*+.R. !V No. ,-.,/, and its Re*o,u-)o+,
'
of Ma% #., '((', den%in0
the 1otion for reconsideration of herein petitioner National Truc2in0 and For"ardin0
!orporation 3NTF!4. The i1pu0ned decision a5r1ed in toto the 6ud01ent
.
dated
Nove1ber #,, #//, of the Re0ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4 of Manila, 7ranch 8., in !ivil
!ase No. /(*8'#('.
The undisputed facts, as su11ari9ed b% the appellate court, are as follo"s:
On $une 8, #/-;, the Republic of the Philippines, throu0h the Depart1ent of <ealth
3DO<4, and the !ooperative for )1erican Relief ver%"here, Inc. 3!)R4 si0ned an
a0ree1ent "herein !)R "ould ac=uire fro1 the >nited States 0overn1ent
donations of non*fat dried 1il2 and other food products fro1 $anuar% #, #/-; to
Dece1ber .#, #/-/. In turn, the Philippines "ould transport and distribute the
donated co11odities to the intended bene?ciaries in the countr%.
The 0overn1ent entered into a contract of carria0e of 0oods "ith herein petitioner
National Truc2in0 and For"ardin0 !orporation 3NTF!4. Thus, the latter shipped ,,-&-
ba0s of non*fat dried 1il2 throu0h herein respondent @oren9o Shippin0 !orporation
3@S!4 fro1 Septe1ber to Dece1ber #/--. The consi0nee na1ed in the bills of ladin0
issued b% the respondent "as )bdurah1an $a1a, petitionerAs branch supervisor in
Ba1boan0a !it%.
On reachin0 the port of Ba1boan0a !it%, respondentAs a0ent, fren Ruste
,
Shippin0
)0enc%, unloaded the ,,-&- ba0s of non*fat dried 1il2 and delivered the 0oods to
petitionerAs "arehouse. 7efore each deliver%, Ro0elio Ri9ada and Is1ael Ba1ora,
both deliver% chec2ers of fren Ruste Shippin0 )0enc%, re=uested )bdurah1an to
surrender the ori0inal bills of ladin0, but the latter 1erel% presented certi?ed true
copies thereof. >pon co1pletion of each deliver%, Ro0elio and Is1ael as2ed
)bdurah1an to si0n the deliver% receipts. <o"ever, at ti1es "hen )bdurah1an had
to attend to other business before a deliver% "as co1pleted, he instructed his
subordinates to si0n the deliver% receipts for hi1.
Not"ithstandin0 the precautions ta2en, the petitioner alle0edl% did not receive the
sub6ect 0oods. Thus, in a letter dated March ##, #/-/, petitioner NTF! ?led a for1al
clai1 for non*deliver% of the 0oods shipped throu0h respondent.
In its letter of )pril '&, #/-/, the respondent eCplained that the car0o had alread%
been delivered to )bdurah1an $a1a. The petitioner then decided to investi0ate the
loss of the 0oods. 7ut before the investi0ation "as over, )bdurah1an $a1a resi0ned
as branch supervisor of petitioner.
Notin0 but disbelievin0 respondentAs insistence that the 0oods "ere delivered, the
0overn1ent throu0h the DO<, !)R, and NTF! as plaintiDs ?led an action for breach
of contract of carria0e, a0ainst respondent as defendant, "ith the RT! of Manila.
)fter trial, the RT! resolved the case as follo"s:
E<RFOR, 6ud01ent is hereb% rendered in favor of the defendant and a0ainst the
plaintiDs, dis1issin0 the latterAs co1plaint, and orderin0 the plaintiDs, pursuant to
the defendantAs counterclai1, to pa%, 6ointl% and solidaril%, to the defendant, actual
da1a0es in the a1ount of P8(,(((.((, and attorne%As fees in the a1ount
ofP;(,(((.((, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDRD.
8
Dissatis?ed "ith the fore0oin0 rulin0, herein petitioner appealed to the !ourt of
)ppeals. It faulted the lo"er court for not holdin0 that respondent failed to deliver
the car0o, and that respondent failed to eCercise the eCtraordinar% dili0ence
re=uired of co11on carriers. Petitioner also assailed the lo"er court for den%in0 its
clai1s for actual, 1oral, and eCe1plar% da1a0es, and for a"ardin0 actual da1a0es
and attorne%As fees to the respondent.
&
The !ourt of )ppeals found that the trial court did not co11it an% reversible error. It
dis1issed the appeal, and a5r1ed the assailed decision in toto.
>ndaunted, petitioner no" co1es to us, assi0nin0 the follo"in0 errors:
I
T< !O>RT OF )PP)@S +R)V@F RRD E<N IT F)I@D TO )PPR!I)T )ND
)PP@F T< @+)@ ST)ND)RD OF GTR)ORDIN)RF DI@I+N! IN T< S<IPMNT )ND
D@IVRF OF +OODS TO T< RSPONDNT )S ) !OMMON !)RRIR, )S E@@ )S
T< )!!OMP)NFIN+ @+)@ PRS>MPTION OF F)>@T OR N+@I+N! ON T< P)RT
OF T< !OMMON !)RRIR, IF T< +OODS )R @OST, DSTROFD OR
DTRIOR)TD, )S RH>IRD >NDR T< !IVI@ !OD.
II
T< !O>RT OF )PP)@S +R)V@F RRD E<N IT S>ST)IND T< 7)S@SS )ND
)R7ITR)RF )E)RD OF )!T>)@ D)M)+S )ND )TTORNFAS FS IN)SM>!< )S T<
ORI+IN)@ !OMP@)INT E)S FI@D IN +OOD F)IT<, EIT<O>T M)@I! )ND EIT< T<
7ST INTNTION OF PROT!TIN+ T< INTRST )ND INT+RITF OF T<
+OVRNMNT )ND ITS !RDI7I@ITF )ND R@)TIONS<IP EIT< INTRN)TION)@
R@IF )+N!IS )ND DONOR ST)TS )ND OR+)NIB)TION.
;
The issues for our resolution are: 3#4 Is respondent presu1ed at fault or ne0li0ent as
co11on carrier for the loss or deterioration of the 0oodsI and 3'4 )re da1a0es and
attorne%As fees due respondentI
)nent the frst issue, petitioner contends that the respondent is presu1ed ne0li0ent
and liable for failure to abide b% the ter1s and conditions of the bills of ladin0J that
)bdurah1an $a1aAs failure to testif% should not be held a0ainst petitionerJ and that
the testi1onies of Ro0elio Ri9ada and Is1ael Ba1ora, as e1plo%ees of respondentAs
a0ent, fren Ruste Shippin0 )0enc%, "ere biased and could not overturn the le0al
presu1ption of respondentAs fault or ne0li0ence.
For its part, the respondent avers that it observed eCtraordinar% dili0ence in the
deliver% of the 0oods. Prior to releasin0 the 0oods to )bdurah1an, Ro0elio and
Is1ael re=uired the surrender of the ori0inal bills of ladin0, and in their absence, the
certi?ed true copies sho"in0 that )bdurah1an "as indeed the consi0nee of the
0oods. In addition, the% re=uired )bdurah1an or his desi0nated subordinates to si0n
the deliver% receipts upon co1pletion of each deliver%.
Ee rule for respondent.
)rticle #;..
-
of the !ivil !ode de1ands that a co11on carrier observe
eCtraordinar% dili0ence over the 0oods transported b% it. Ctraordinar% dili0ence is
that eCtre1e 1easure of care and caution "hich persons of unusual prudence and
circu1spection use for securin0 and preservin0 their o"n propert% or ri0hts.
/
This
eCactin0 standard i1posed on co11on carriers in a contract of carria0e of 0oods is
intended to tilt the scales in favor of the shipper "ho is at the 1erc% of the co11on
carrier once the 0oods have been lod0ed for ship1ent. <ence, in case of loss of
0oods in transit, the co11on carrier is presu1ed under the la" to have been at
fault or ne0li0ent.
#(
<o"ever, the presu1ption of fault or ne0li0ence, 1a% be
overturned b% co1petent evidence sho"in0 that the co11on carrier has observed
eCtraordinar% dili0ence over the 0oods.
In the instant case, "e a0ree "ith the court a quo that the respondent ade=uatel%
proved that it eCercised eCtraordinar% dili0ence. )lthou0h the ori0inal bills of ladin0
re1ained "ith petitioner, respondentAs a0ents de1anded fro1 )bdurah1an the
certi?ed true copies of the bills of ladin0. The% also as2ed the latter and in his
absence, his desi0nated subordinates, to si0n the car0o deliver% receipts.
This practice, "hich respondentAs a0ents testi?ed to be their standard operatin0
procedure, ?nds support in )rticle .8. of the !ode of !o11erce:
)RT. .8.. . . .
)fter the contract has been co1plied "ith, the bill of ladin0 "hich the carrier has
issued shall be returned to hi1, and b% virtue of the eCchan0e of this title "ith the
thin0 transported, the respective obli0ations and actions shall be considered
cancelled, K.
I+ (a*e -.e (o+*)/+ee, u0o+ re(e)1)+/ -.e /oo2*, (a++o- re-ur+ -.e b),, o3
,a2)+/ *ub*(r)be2 by -.e (arr)er, be(au*e o3 )-* ,o** or o3 a+y o-.er (au*e,
.e 4u*- /)1e -.e ,a--er a re(e)0- 3or -.e /oo2* 2e,)1ere2, -.)* re(e)0-
0ro2u()+/ -.e *a4e e5e(-* a* -.e re-ur+ o3 -.e b),, o3 ,a2)+/. 31phasis
supplied4
!onfor1abl% "ith the aforecited provision, the surrender of the ori0inal bill of ladin0
is not a condition precedent for a co11on carrier to be dischar0ed of its contractual
obli0ation. If surrender of the ori0inal bill of ladin0 is not possible, ac2no"led01ent
of the deliver% b% si0nin0 the deliver% receipt su5ces. This is "hat respondent did.
Ee also note that so1e deliver% receipts "ere si0ned b% )bdurah1anAs
subordinates and not b% )bdurah1an hi1self as consi0nee. Further, deliver%
chec2ers Ro0elio and Is1ael testi?ed that )bdurah1an "as al"a%s present at the
initial phase of each deliver%, althou0h on the fe" occasions "hen )bdurah1an
could not sta% to "itness the co1plete deliver% of the ship1ent, he authori9ed his
subordinates to si0n the deliver% receipts for hi1. This, to our 1ind, is su5cient and
substantial co1pliance "ith the re=uire1ents.
Ee further note that, stran0el%, petitioner 1ade no eDort to disapprove
)bdurah1anAs resi0nation until after the investi0ation and after he "as cleared of
an% responsibilit% for the loss of the 0oods. Eith )bdurah1an outside of its reach,
petitioner cannot no" pass to respondent "hat could be )bdurah1anAs ne0li0ence,
if indeed he "ere responsible.
On the second issue, petitioner sub1its there is no basis for the a"ard of actual
da1a0es and attorne%As fees. It 1aintains that its ori0inal co1plaint for su1 of
1one% "ith da1a0es for breach of contract of carria0e "as not fraudulent, in bad
faith, nor 1alicious. Neither "as the institution of the action rash nor precipitate.
Petitioner avers the ?lin0 of the action "as intended to protect the inte0rit% and
interest of the 0overn1ent and its relationship and credibilit% "ith international
relief a0encies and donor states.
On the other hand, respondent 1aintains that petitionerAs suit "as baseless and
1alicious because instead of 0oin0 after its abscondin0 e1plo%ee, petitioner "anted
to recoup its losses fro1 respondent. The trial court and the !ourt of )ppeals "ere
6usti?ed in 0rantin0 actual da1a0es and reasonable attorne%As fees to respondent.
On this point, "e a0ree "ith petitioner.
The ri0ht to liti0ate should bear no pre1iu1. )n adverse decision does not ipso
facto 6ustif% an a"ard of attorne%As fees to the "innin0 part%.
##
Ehen, as in the
instant case, petitioner "as co1pelled to sue to protect the credibilit% of the
0overn1ent "ith international or0ani9ations, "e are not inclined to 0rant attorne%As
fees. Ee ?nd no ill 1otive on petitionerAs part, onl% an erroneous belief in the
ri0hteousness of its clai1.
Moreover, an a"ard of attorne%As fees, in the concept of da1a0es under )rticle ''(-
of the !ivil !ode,
#'
re=uires factual and le0al 6usti?cations.

Ehile the la" allo"s
so1e de0ree of discretion on the part of the courts in a"ardin0 attorne%As fees and
eCpenses of liti0ation, the discretion 1ust be eCercised "ith 0reat care
approCi1atin0 as closel% as possible, the instances eCe1pli?ed b% the la".
#.
Ee
have searched but found nothin0 in petitionerAs suit that 6usti?es the a"ard of
attorne%As fees.
Respondent failed to sho" proof of actual pecuniar% loss, hence, no actual da1a0es
are due in favor of respondent.
#,
#%EREFORE, the petition is P)RTI)@@F +R)NTD. The assailed decision and
resolution of the !ourt of )ppeals in !)*+.R. !V No. ,-.,/ dated $anuar% #&, '(('
and Ma% #., '((' respectivel%, den%in0 petitionerAs clai1 for actual, 1oral and
eCe1plar% da1a0es are )FFIRMD. The a"ard of actual da1a0es and attorne%As
fees to respondent pursuant to the latterAs counterclai1 in the trial court is
D@TD.
SO ORDRD.